It is agreed that tulpamancy was derived from Tibetan Monk practice. By definition, that makes it an esoteric practice.
Alexandra David-Néel, anthropologist, studying Tibetan Monks learns about Tulpas and decided to give it a go. She reports back to the west, 'no shit, this really happened, and other people saw it...' People read this and do one of three things, dismiss it as folklore, accept it as real, but take out the 'metaphysical' artifacts and explore duplicating tulpas for themselves, or they believed it all and they go into a magical world where their thoughts can affect reality.
We will zero out the first and third camps and focus on the 2nd camp: people believe tulpas are possible psychologically, but dismiss all the other aspects. My question is, if they dismiss any part of it, why even endeavor to make a tulpa at all? More than that, if we just go with the curiosity factor, then engage tulpamancy, only to immediately discover "OMG, this shit is real!" then why doesn't that automatically result in even the remotest possibility that all of it could be real?! I mean, here we are, a fringe group trying to tell the rest of the world, this is real and we get dismissed by the majority, and yet we turn around and dismiss the very people that created it or discovered it, the monks, and the first western person to experience it and report back from the far sides of the world 'hey, there is something here...' I mean, either Alexandria had REAL experiences that was SHARED with her group, or she went native! (Translation, crazy due to boundary issues.) If every time something strange happens we put up a sign saying 'there be dragons here' to try and keep people from looking deeper, then we are no better than the other people that say tulpamancy is pure imaginational rubbish.